Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media Hardware

pcHDTV Card Available, Legal for Now 421

Posted by michael from the war-on-hardware dept.
corby writes "pcHDTV has announced that their new HD-3000 Hi Definition Television Card will be shipping tomorrow, November 8th. The card is supported under Linux, and captures NTSC and ATSC video streams. It also ignores the Broadcast Flag, which means that it will be illegal in the States starting July 1st, 2005, under a recent FCC Order. If you are interested in being able to make your own decisions about what you can do with broadcast HDTV content, this is your last, best, chance."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

pcHDTV Card Available, Legal for Now More

pcHDTV Card Available, Legal for Now

Comments Filter:

  • Uh Oh ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 08, 2004 @08:11AM (#10753515)
    Once the feds find out I own this card and ripped the tag off my mattress I'll be off to the big house.

    • Time to Fight Back! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gcheek ( 829232 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:41AM (#10755456)
      Is it just me, or is EVERYONE getting so fed up with all the rules and regulations. If we're all fed up why not do something about it.. Look at the 60's everyone would boycot and riot, now I'm not saying we need to go to their extreme but it worked. Maybe we can start a petition and starting emailing the movie houses for EVERYONE's signature. If I can't watch a show when its on.. I'd like to watch it later.. If I can't watch a movie when it's on.. I'd like to watch it later... Now am I so wrong to want to be entertained by what I when I have the time? I'd love to hear others views! To: TV and Government... Don't like what I'm saying? Bring it on... Just post a reply and I'll give you ALL my contact info so you can come knock on my door. That's right I'm fed up.. and am not afraid. I download new movies tv programs you name it! If a movie is worth the $ I go see it if it stinks I don't.. until the movie houses offer me a refund if I'm not happy I'm not going to change. Make good movies and I'll pay to watch! or make bad movies and give me my money back if I'm not happy!

  • Why? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by boohiss ( 804985 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @08:11AM (#10753519) Homepage
    Could someone explain what the broadcast flag is, and why it's going to be illegal to ignore it?

    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)

      by LighthouseJ ( 453757 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @08:13AM (#10753531)
      http://slate.msn.com/id/2091723/ [msn.com]

      • Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)

        by hendridm ( 302246 ) * on Monday November 08, 2004 @09:15AM (#10753923) Homepage
        From the article: "A digital TV broadcast can be easily grabbed and saved to disk as a perfect copy of the original, which alarms the studios that produce the shows."

        Yum, can I record a butchered version of Top Gun laden with commercials and blank out curse words? At least it will be in perfect quality so I can feel the full effect of how Dawn takes grease out of my way.

        • Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by gcaseye6677 ( 694805 )
          This is how any free movies will be shown, in order to give the consumer more incentive to subscribe to a premium channel or to order the movie through pay per view. It's all about squeezing the maximum amount of money out of people willing to pay for movies. That being said, this plan won't be very successful if movies don't get better. People probably won't be willing to pay for most of the crap out there once its shown in the theater and everyone realizes it sucks.

    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by CountBrass ( 590228 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @08:16AM (#10753543)

      In essence it's a DRM flag that says "don't allow this broadcast to be copied, recorded or anything else". So you can't record it to video tape or on your Tivo or any other device. Outrageous really as it goes against an explicit Supreme Court Ruling.

      This card ignores that flag...

      (As an aside: for a long, long time I bemoaned the fact that we in the UK had no written constituiton and was jealous that the US did. And then you got Dubyah. Twice. And I rejoiced that we have an unelected head of state and no written constitution that politicians can ignore whenever they pack enough like minded jurists into the supreme court. But then I remembered we've got Blair and no limitation on how often he can be re-elected...)

      • Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)

        by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 )
        Outrageous really as it goes against an explicit Supreme Court Ruling.

        I'm not aware of any ruling that it contradicts. Of course, if it does, the appropriate measure is to go to court and challenge it.

        • Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Tassach ( 137772 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @10:11AM (#10754406)
          I'm not aware of any ruling that it contradicts
          Sony v. Universal, more commonly known as the Betamax decision. The key points of the Betamax decision are:
          1. [The] noncommercial home use recording of material broadcast over the public airwaves [is] fair use of copyrighted works and [does] not constitute copyright infringement
          2. [The law] does not support [...] theory that supplying the "means" to accomplish an infringing activity and encouraging that activity through advertisement are sufficient to establish liability for copyright infringement
          3. The sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes, or, indeed, is merely capable of substantial noninfringing uses.
          4. [U]nauthorized home time-shifting of [television] programs is legitimate fair use
          The last point is the key one here: EVEN IF the copyright holder does not authorize you to make a copy for your personal use, you are STILL legally entitled to do so.

          Copyright is NOT an absolute monopoly on the duplication of a published work -- no matter how they whine, the copyright cartels cannot deny you your LEGAL fair use rights.

          • Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @10:55AM (#10754890) Homepage
            First, you misread the case. There has never been a case that established that an entire species of use, such as time shifting, was inevitably fair use. Rather, each individual use claimed to be a fair use must be judged on its own circumstances. Time shifting by one person might be a fair use, but that doesn't mean that time shifting by another person is. Sony merely recognized that a substantial amount of the time shifting going on, or that _might_ go on, was fair.

            Second, I don't recall any case that claims that people are entitled to fair uses. Only that it isn't infringement to make a fair use. Copyright holders are under no obligation to make it easy. This is because fair use is not a right. It is merely a defense to infringement actions.

            Plus of course, it remains to be seen whether the broadcast flag falls under the copyright power at all, and is therefore subject to a fair use argument.

            • Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by rpdillon ( 715137 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:36AM (#10755411) Homepage
              Your ideas are good, if a bit malformed.

              Sony vs. Universal did exactly what you describe: they ruled that recording programs for the purpose of timeshifting was fair-use. Call this an "entire species" if you like, but that's what the decision said.

              People are not entitled to fair use - you are correct. However, that in no way means that fair use is "merely" a defense: it is not. It is a gap in the applicability of copyright (and DMCA) law. In other words, a specific provision under which the resitrction does not apply. If you were looking for something that is "merely" a defense, you should look at patent law's "prior art" or something more along those lines. But "fair use" and "prior art" are different in their natures.

              Lastly, the broadcast flag will not fall under anything *but* copyright law, or an extension thereof, like the DMCA.

              You bring up one very good point thought that I rarely see here: even though its entirely LEGAL for you to make copies as a paying user of [digital cable, satellite TV, satellite radio, whatever], there is no law saying that the broadcasters cannot make it difficult or [relatively] impossible for you to do so. I think this is a legal loophole for providers that needs to be closed to protect consumer's rights. (As you pointed out, fair use is not a right, but I think it should be.) As it stands now, we are in a situation where we are legally allowed to copy something, but the providers are also legally allowed to take every measure to stop us from doing so, including outlawing devices that would permit such an action. Circumvention of those restriction on the device would then fall under a legal exclusion, but you have to ask yourself at some point if we're being honest with ourselves...you basically are legally allowing something and then making it so hard to accomplish that only a very small portion of the population can benefit from that legal provision. This is a sort of legislative dishonestly - you're saying one thing while allowing something completely different to actually occur. We need to decide what we really want and then put laws into place that [protect/prohibit] those actions.

              If you read the Sony vs. Universal decision, there is a lot of commentary by the judge "schooling" people in copyright law, its true purpose, and how it needs to be revamped when new technologies emerge. We're approaching that time, and I'm not so sure I'm going to like the outcome.

              • Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)

                by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @12:00PM (#10755693) Homepage
                Sony vs. Universal did exactly what you describe: they ruled that recording programs for the purpose of timeshifting was fair-use. Call this an "entire species" if you like, but that's what the decision said.

                I disagree. From the opinion:

                Thus, although every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively an unfair exploitation of the monopoly privilege that belongs to the owner of the copyright, noncommercial uses are a different matter. A challenge to a noncommercial use of a copyrighted work requires proof either that the particular use is harmful, or that if it should become widespread, it would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work. Actual present harm need not be shown; such a requirement would leave the copyright holder with no defense against predictable damage. Nor is it necessary to show with certainty that future harm will result. What is necessary is a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that some meaningful likelihood of future harm exists. If the intended use is for commercial gain, that likelihood may be presumed. But if it is for a noncommercial purpose, the likelihood must be demonstrated.


                In this case, respondents failed to carry their burden with regard to home time-shifting.


                (emphasis mine). The Court did not say that in every case, home time shifting was a fair use. Only that it was insofar as it was looked at in the Sony case. Now, I grant that plaintiffs are going to have a godawful hard time, but the possibility is still open.

                This is entirely within the framework of fair use, which is a rule of equity that hinges entirely on an examination of the facts of each case to such a degree that it's virtually impossible to establish a thorough test.

                However, that in no way means that fair use is "merely" a defense: it is not. It is a gap in the applicability of copyright (and DMCA) law.

                Meh. Fair use is unlike the other exemptions in that in practice it isn't like rebutting the prima face case. But yes, it is in the 107-122 range.

                Re: prior art, well, fair use doesn't invalidate a copyright. It's not only highly personal, but it's circumstance limited. Again, it seems most similar to self defense in a criminal case.

                As for the DMCA, however, there is disagreement. 1201 et al deal with causes of action for circumvention and such, not infringement, and fair use is traditionally only relevant for infringement. And the DMCA says that it doesn't enlarge fair use, so if circumvention is outside the scope of infringement, then fair use doesn't apply.

                In order for fair use to apply to the DMCA, those sections will need to be under the copyright power, and fair use will need to be a constitutionally required doctrine applying to anything under the copyright power. Both issues remain to be seen.

                Lastly, the broadcast flag will not fall under anything *but* copyright law, or an extension thereof, like the DMCA.

                The only cases I've heard that seem useful for that are Martignon, the similar bootlegging case out on the west coast, IIRC, the Trade-Mark cases, etc.

                Still not a very solid claim. Though I do agree, personally (and that fair use applies constitutionally to all copyright power exercises). But the courts don't often listen to me.

                If you read the Sony vs. Universal decision, there is a lot of commentary by the judge

                Justice, not judge, unless you're talking about the district or circuit opinions, which are rarely read.

              • DMCA already does this (Score:4, Informative)

                by debest ( 471937 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @12:28PM (#10756028)
                you basically are legally allowing something and then making it so hard to accomplish that only a very small portion of the population can benefit from that legal provision

                This is precisely what the DMCA already does. It forbids the "trafficking" (for want of a better word) in devices (programs or physical objects) that circumvent copy protection schemes. If a copy protection scheme does not permit fair use, it is not illegal to reclaim those fair use rights by disabling the scheme. It is, however, illegal to tell anyone else how you did it. That potentially leaves only the technical elite to be able to legally use the media in a fair manner. This effect is, of course, exactly as intended by the law.

                As you stated, making things difficult is entirely permitted by copyright law. Where the DMCA is legally objectionable is that it creates ban is on the communication of an idea (ie: free speech), and I hope a case which can address gets successfully heard at the Supreme Court soon!

          • Re:Why? (Score:3, Funny)

            by Jardine ( 398197 )
            no matter how they whine, the copyright cartels cannot deny you your LEGAL fair use rights.

            Apparently they can.

      • Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)

        by Tassach ( 137772 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @10:17AM (#10754475)
        You want a written Constitution? <shrug>

        Here, take ours. We don't seem to be using it anymore.

      • Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)

        by nsayer ( 86181 ) <nsayer@MENCKENkfu.com minus author> on Monday November 08, 2004 @10:38AM (#10754708) Homepage
        Not quite. You are allowed to record a show with the broadcast flag turned on. However, any device after the tuner must support either transporting or recording the digital stream in a secure (encrypted) way so that you, the owner of the equipment, cannot get to see the raw digital bits (because you are presumed to be naughty and would put them up on Kaaza). You can record the bits, but the recorded has to keep them encrypted and must have serial copy management. If any device in the chain does not support the HDMI-CP stuff, then the signal has to be either blocked, or downconverted to 480i.

        There was once somewhere an FCC FAQ about the broadcast flag. It specifically says that, yes, you can have a TiVo, so long as it denies you high-quality digital access to unencrypted bits.

        It's still a raw deal. There's no reason to make it sound worse than it really is.

      • Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by mark-t ( 151149 )
        Something I'm not seeing here is what is to stop _software_ (which does the recording, if the HDTV hardware is part of PC card), from ignoring this flag?

        We all remember what happened with DeCSS, after all...

  • US Laws (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Clappingman ( 829179 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @08:13AM (#10753527) Journal
    Perhaps a publicly available hardware hack would be the answer to such legislation? I mean deCSS worked well for everyone, no?

    • Re:US Laws (Score:4, Insightful)

      by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @08:53AM (#10753772) Journal
      A better analogy than DeCSS is the copyright flag on CDDA. This flag is set when a copy is made of a copyright track, and compliant copiers are not allowed to duplicate the copy of the copy. I don't think I've seen a compliant copier for quite a while...

  • Cognitive Dissonance (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 08, 2004 @08:13AM (#10753528)
    "It also ignores the Broadcast Flag, which means that it will be illegal in the States starting July 1st, 2005
    But don't forget, despite the zillion of harmless, mundane things the government won't allow you to do, America is still the Land Of The Free (tm).

    Those who have their doubts, please report to school for your free re-education. Don't forget to pledge allegiance to the flag on the way past. But try not to smoke any dope, or attempt to gamble on a sporting event.

    Thank you.

    Message ends.
    • Being free doesn't guarantee you the right to steal from others.

      • Re:Cognitive Dissonance (Score:3, Insightful)

        by gowen ( 141411 )
        Taping things off the TV to watch at a later date constitutes theft now? On what planet do you live?
        • Well, since the FCC order explictly says it doesn't forbid you to tape things off the TV to watch them later, I suggest you RTFA before you criticize him.

          And as far as I can tell, it will only become illegal to sell (or, possibly, manufacture, even for your own use) these cards next year; they won't suddenly become illegal to possess on July 1.

          Distributing copyrighted content, online or otherwise, whether you're ingoring a broadcast flag or there was no flag in the first place, will remain just as legal o

  • Have the older card, works great (Score:5, Interesting)

    by YetAnotherName ( 168064 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @08:14AM (#10753535) Homepage
    I've got the older pcHDTV card for Linux, the so-called model 2000, and it works great. With a RAID array and three quarters of a terabyte of storage, I've been legally time-shifting broadcast HDTV. (You've got to see the cute freckles on Jennifer Garner on Alias!)

    I will go ahead and buy one of the new ones, too; it would be nice to do dual-stream recording.

    And Linux only. Does it get any better than that?
    • Yes it can get better than that. Many, many areas of the country do not broadcast HDTV, and even then...who the hell wants to watch network TV? I want to see my Six Feet Under or Movies or Discovery in HDTV. So when someone finally gets the idea of controlling a sat or cable box AND records HDTV AND ignores the broadcast flag....THEN they will have a TOTAL winner. No matter what OS they support!

  • pcHDTV (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Silwenae ( 514138 ) * on Monday November 08, 2004 @08:16AM (#10753546) Homepage
    This is good to see, they've been out of stock, what, going on two months now? I've been (im)patiently awaiting buying one of these to build my Myth box.

    The card itself won't be illegal as the headline implies, but it will be illegal to import any card or component that ignores the Broadcast flag. Any cards or tuners built and installed prior to July 1st, 2005 will be grandfathered in and should work just fine.

    This is one of they key reasons to support the EFF - visit their HDTV Action Center [eff.org] and and learn more about the Broadcast Flag [eff.org]. The second link about the Broadcast Flag has some great information and links to building a HTPC for multiple OS's and exactly what the federal government is trying to do.

    I've very disappointed by the FCC's decision - it shouldn't be up to Hollywood to decide what TV I can and can't record and when I want to watch it. This battle has been fought (and won!) before, and here is the government messing with it again.

    Support the EFF and make your voice heard [eff.org]!
  • I've been putting off the hdtv thing for a while now, and this will bring it to me affordably for the cost of the card, and a workhorse pc to sit -set side. At $189 is surprisingly affordable! My 21" plasma monitor should get me through until my bank account permits me to buy a larger theatre sized monitor. This is great!

  • I'm more interested in a video card (Score:5, Interesting)

    by EmagGeek ( 574360 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @08:17AM (#10753555) Journal
    ... with an HDTV output... it would be oh-so-nice to throw 1080 resolution to my 42" HDTV..

    I haven't seen any thus far... has anyone else?

  • Not a big deal (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geighaus ( 670864 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @08:18AM (#10753562)
    I am pretty sure you will be able to purchase an "illegal" card from Europe or Asia after the broadcast flag law steps in force. It's not like we live in pre-Internet days after all..

    Besides, look at DVD players. There are plenty of players on the market, which ignore regional settings despite DMCA and other bullshit regulations.

    • Re:Not a big deal (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Zorilla ( 791636 )
      This brings up a question. Is the broadcast flag enforced in hardware or software? If it's the latter, this should prove easy to bypass if the capture is done on a computer.

      • Re:Not a big deal (Score:3, Informative)

        by Sheetrock ( 152993 )
        Probably hardware, possibly software. Looking over GNU Radio (which exists to do signal interpretation in software) I suspect someone could work their own decoder out of that with enough money, time and knowledge -- probably all out of proportion to what one of these pcHDTV cards costs.

        I don't think it stops with the broadcast flag, though; once proprietary encryption gets into the mix, there's not going to be a gray area like this with hardware you pick up in the store. Why can't I get a decoder card t

    • Well, here in Europe we use PAL instead of NTSC, so a European card wont do the job. Dont know about Asia though

      • Re:Not a big deal (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Zorilla ( 791636 )
        Most TV tuners are multiformat. My BT878 can do NTSC, PAL, SECAM, you name it. This is probably also true for HD, as nothing needs to change in the DSP to adapt to a different format.
      • Bow to your Canadian overlords and get one from North of the border when you come for cheap medicine, flu shots, abortions, cuban cigars and maple syrup! Bwahaha, eh!

    • Re:Not a big deal (Score:4, Interesting)

      by smurf1974 ( 463833 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @08:51AM (#10753765)
      Digital content is not broadcast using ATSC in europe. We use the DVB standard.

      They are both supersets of MPEG-2 but service information is encoded in a different way, and the tuner hardware is also different. And then there is the whole PAL/NTSC issue, but I'm not sure it applies to HDTV and almost all tv's nowdays can display both NTSC and PAL anyway.

      • Re:Not a big deal (Score:3, Informative)

        by kentborg ( 12732 )
        > almost all tv's nowdays can display both
        > NTSC and PAL anyway.

        Oh, so wrong. In Europe (a place aware of the rest of the world) this may be so. But in the US (an ignorant, parochial, and isolationalist place that unfortunately still insists on throwing its international weight around) multi-standard TV sets mostly don't exist.

        Don't underestimate how backward this Red State-laden country is.

        -kb, the Kent who is proud to live in a Blue State.
    • > I am pretty sure you will be able to purchase an "illegal" card from
      > Europe or Asia after the broadcast flag law steps in force

      Agreed... Specifically, I wouldn't be too surprised to see card manufacturers implementing broadcast flag support in USA-only drivers... Drivers will be available to the rest of the world which might just happen to accidentally work in the USA.

      c.

      • Re:Not a big deal (Score:5, Informative)

        by DaHat ( 247651 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @09:24AM (#10753981)
        You are making the mistake to believe that foreign hardware will work just as well as it would here.

        With broadcasts, the US uses NTSC which is being replaced by ATSC which is carried on an 8VSB modulated signal. Only 2 places in the world currently use ATSC over 8VSB, the US and South Korea.

        I have seen a few interesting SK products though, one that runs about 300, is an external tuner using USB 2.0, looks great... now I just need to convince my boss to let me have it (someone here while on business in SK found one and fell in love with it).

        The European standard is COFDM for modulation and is radically different enough where it is extremely unlikely that you will find a demodulator capable of handling both, and even if there was such a part, the likelihood of it being used is low, after all, why adapt a multi national standard when you are only looking to target a single region?

    • Re:Not a big deal (Score:4, Informative)

      by theancient2 ( 527101 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @11:46AM (#10755522)
      If enough Canadians can convince their government to stand up to U.S. pressure to implement the broadcast flag, you may be able to import them from there. It can't hurt that ATI is a Canadian company.

      There's an article about it in the Toronto Star: Mr. Minister, please protect the public interest [thestar.com].

      Here are a few interesting parts:

      [Industry Minister David] Emerson's strong backbone will be tested in the months ahead as he faces unrelenting U.S. pressure on two initiatives that would, if adopted, provide broadcasters with unprecedented control over television signals and severely curtail consumers' expectations with regard to their rights and personal privacy. ...

      Given the controversy associated with the broadcast flag in the U.S., one would think that Canada would be wary about embarking on the same route. Accordingly, it came as a shock to many when an Industry Canada official recently indicated that Canada was likely to follow the U.S. lead by quickly implementing a similar system by July 2005. The official suggested that there was broadcaster support for the measure and that since the U.S. had adopted it, Canadians had little alternative but to follow suit.

      While Canadian broadcasters may or may not support the broadcast flag (they have in fact been rather publicly silent on the matter), it is essential Canada craft its own policy by considering the privacy and copyright policies associated with the proposal.

      Pre-judging the issue, as some in Minister Emerson's department appear to have done, is a dangerous course of action, that should be replaced immediately by a working group of all stakeholders, including the broader public interest, intent on studying the Canadian options. The suggestion Canada faces a Y2K-like deadline with respect to the broadcast flag appears as overblown as was the Y2K threat itself.

      In light of the importance of the issues raised by the broadcast flag, it is heartening that Canada's new Industry Minister is a veteran of supporting Canadian interests in the face of U.S. pressure. When David Emerson salutes the flag on Canada Day 2005, one hopes that it is one with a maple leaf, not a broadcast flag emblazoned with red, white, and blue.

      The Honourable David Emerson, Minister of Industry, can be contacted by email [ic.gc.ca] or by regular mail [parl.gc.ca].

  • Broadcase Flag? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Isn't this an OTA HD tuner card? Will the broadcast flag even be used for this type of signal? I though it was reserved for Cable/Satellite and over the air signals were in the clear?

  • Misquote (Score:5, Funny)

    by dorward ( 129628 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @08:19AM (#10753571) Homepage Journal
    Shouldn't that be "last, best, hope [midwinter.com]"?

  • HDTV Cable and Satellite still a no go? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Famatra ( 669740 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @08:20AM (#10753575) Journal

    According to the EFF [eff.org]'s, article here [eff.org], on how to build a PVR [wikipedia.org], there are no cards to get High Definition Cable or Satellite. Time is running out to get these features into a card before next summer ;).

    Anyone know if they've made a card for HDTV cable or satellite?

  • How much does it cost? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @08:20AM (#10753576)
    Dang article is slashdotted. How much does this card cost?

  • I dunno .... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by YeeHaW_Jelte ( 451855 )
    .. but how big is the chance that HDTV, when(if) it finally gets adopted, will be broadcasted on air-waves? I mean, here in the Netherlands, the television antenna's are being slowly dismantled because almost all homes either are connected to cable or can receive via a satellite dish.

    • Re:I dunno .... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Cloud 9 ( 42467 )
      Every local television syndicate has to broadcast OTA in the USA.
    • Does anybody have any figures as to how much bandwidth can realistically be dedicated to HDTV signals? I'm guessing that (this is a US-centric comment) even if the bands were reworked, there's still only enough room for a few channels over the air. Gotta have cable or satellite.

      • Re:I dunno .... (Score:3, Informative)

        by Roofus ( 15591 )
        TV stations in the US are broadcasting their ditigal signal using 8VSB modulation in a 6MHz channel. That equates to a 19.39 Mb/s bitrate.

        The stations have the option of how many programs they wish to broadcast within this space. They may show 4 standard definition digital channels at 4Mb/s each during the day, and at night switch to a High Def stream at 14Mb/s and an SD at 4Mb/s.

        Stations could also have non-traditional channels (channels that most of the major networks have never owned), such as weath

  • Last chance- my ass! (Score:4, Funny)

    by quarrel ( 194077 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @08:27AM (#10753629)
    Yeah 'cause there is no way that we won't see hacked firmware released for TV capture cards like we do for dvds [rpc1.org].

    I'm sure we also won't see someone using a felt tipped marker [wired.com] thanks to the wonderful people protecting the world with great laws like this..

    Of course all the people using such things will be terrorists, so I guess that's ok. I hear there are other bits of Cuba to fill anyway.

  • Typo in the article (Score:5, Insightful)

    by raxxerax ( 673428 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @08:34AM (#10753666)
    From TFA:
    The reason for the ruling [requiring the broadcast flag]: If TV broadcasters start sending movies such as Finding Nemo over the air in high definition, it will be too easy for any techie to set up a PC that automatically uploads perfect copies to the Net.


    Won't that happen anyway?

    Probably.
    The last line should read "Definitely."
    • There was probably a scramble like this back when DVD-ROMs were changing from RPC1 (region free in the hardware, only software region-enforced) to RPC2 (regions enforced in the hardware.)

      Even after the broadcast flag is enforced, I'm sure there will be firmware hacks or whatnot available to ignore the broadcast flag. Really, for almost all DVD-ROM/R/Rw hardware out there, you can just patch the firmware and it's totally RPC1.

    • Nah, the internet is filled to the brin with people who think DVD Shrink can make Finding Nemo (for example) fit onto a 4.7 GB disc without losing any quality. It's going to be a while.

  • last, best chance? (Score:3, Funny)

    by syrinje ( 781614 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @08:54AM (#10753779)
    Presumptious that is! Next month may a better card be released. Bringing better technology every day is. But article does some wisdom contain - error it is till last minute to wait !!

  • No Windows support! (Score:5, Informative)

    by RealProgrammer ( 723725 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @09:03AM (#10753834) Homepage Journal
    Requirements
    • IntelR PentiumR 1200Mhz or higher
    • Linux Red Hat Linux 9.0 Fedora core 1 and 2
    • Sound card.
    • 256 MB RAM or higher
    • CD ROM Drive
    • One available PCI slot
    • Currently the HD-3000 is NOT supported in Windows 98, Windows 2000 or Windows XP however Windows drivers are include for those wishing to experiment with the card in Microsoft Windows.

    That last line is a remarkable reversal from the usual state of affairs. Normally announcements don't mention Linux compatibility (but it's available at your own risk if you snag some source from their web site).

    That alone makes me want one.

  • Drivers are a bit rocky (Score:5, Informative)

    by wowbagger ( 69688 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @09:07AM (#10753869) Homepage Journal
    The drivers are a bit rocky - unfortunately they are not in the mainline kernel, and if you are running a newer kernel getting the patches to apply is a bit tricky.

    Also, the version of xine they have modified to support tuning and selecting the video streams on a multi-stream HD transmission is OLD - 0.7. Again, they have not moved the support into the main line Xine.

    Alsa (sic), under 2.6.x and ALSA sound you cannot get audio for normal TV as the modified video driver claims the resources the ALSA sound driver needs. Yes, the primary focus of the card is HDTV not NTSC, but still, IMHO they should fix that.

    Lastly, you had DAMN WELL have a meaty machine if you plan on watching 1080i streams - my Athlon-xp 3000 with an ATI 7500 AIW, with everything tweaked in as much as I can, needs about 120% CPU to watch a 1080I stream. IF you have an nVidia card, IF you have the modified version of Xine with XvMC support THEN you can lower the bar a bit, but otherwise, no.

    I'd like to see them make the effort to get all the software into the main line codebases - I believe the hold-up is the issue of possibly supporting the Linux DVB API rather than bodging the ATSC support into V4L2.

    • Re:Drivers are a bit rocky (Score:4, Informative)

      by brandon ( 16150 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @12:06PM (#10755778)
      I run 3 pcHDTV cards on a amd 2600 (333fsb) and an nvidia 5200. Things work fine, but without the fx5200 that supports XvMC there's no chance of running 1080i and de-interlacing it in realtime on anything sub 2.8Ghz P4 with HT. All AMD's run slower, be it their slower FPU (by about 30%) or their lower speed BUS. I personally max out the BUS on my motherboard whenever I try to watch a show and record more than 2 at once. I'm not going to start another CPU war, but the facts are that Intels do run much more smoothly (video and all) than AMD's do, even 64 bit AMD's. If you do have problems on a 3k AMD, get an NVidia card that supports all XvMC optimization and you'll be happy.

      --Brandon
  • What do the businesses, which will be required to make this change, think of this? Do they like Big Brother stepping in?

    I don't like the concept of a big government. The concept of stealing HD programming needs to be dealt with another way entirely.

  • Not illegal to own (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pedrito ( 94783 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @09:32AM (#10754039)
    Just to clear this up a bit, because the article is misleading and I didn't see any posts clarifying this. It will not be illegal to own or possess these cards (HDTV receivers that ignore the broadcast flag). It will simply be illegal to sell them in the U.S.

    I suggest people stock up on them. I don't even have an HDTV at this point, but I'm going to grab a card just so I'm covered...

  • Will NOT be "illegal" to own July 1, 2005 (Score:5, Informative)

    by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) * on Monday November 08, 2004 @10:12AM (#10754422)
    ALL equipment sold before this date in the US that does not respect the Broadcast Flag will be grandfathered in. From http://eff.org/broadcastflag/ [eff.org]:

    The good news is this mandate doesn't take effect for another year. We have until July 1, 2005, to buy, build, and sell fully-capable, non-flag-compliant HDTV receivers. Any receivers built now will "remain functional under a flag regime, allowing consumers to continue their use without the need for new or additional equipment." [PDF] Any devices made this year can be re-sold in the future.

  • But why? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jandersen ( 462034 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @10:13AM (#10754427)
    I mean why would anyone want to own a HDTV not to mention an card to stick into a PC? TV is bad enough at the current low resolution, I certainly don't want to make it worse by seeing it any clearlier.

    Seriously, though - I feel I have seen far more than enough crappy TV in my life. Sometimes I watch the news - BBC - and sometimes, say once a month, there is a program that is actually worth your time, that gives you factual information without a load of stupid fade in/out, 'cool' soundtrack and other rubbish. The rest of the time it's quizzes, 'reality' tv, sport and worst of all: garden programs, house makeovers and celebrity chefs, none of whom have anything in the direction of taste or even common sense.

    When (if) the day comes when you have to have digital and HDTV, I'll simply go without. And perhaps go to the cinema once every other year, when a film is released that is worth my time.

  • other cards available too (Score:4, Informative)

    by jmb295 ( 760663 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @10:28AM (#10754601)
    There are two other cars that are available with stable windows drivers: MyHD & Fusion. MyHD does all of the processing in hardware, and can output component video/vga/or dvi directly to the tv without help from a video card. The Fusion card does the processing in software and uses the video card to output to the tv.

  • Freedom Overkill (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @10:30AM (#10754618) Homepage Journal
    What happens when the broadcasters change the data format they broadcast, to get everyone to upgrade ($) and to shake these legacy freedom devices? This thing needs open, pluggable firmware.

  • Where are the plans to this video card? (Score:5, Funny)

    by El Camino SS ( 264212 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @10:49AM (#10754832)

    "The tighter you squeeze, the more video signals will slip through your fingers."
    "Where are these cards manufactured?"
    "Somewhere in Europe, maybe in Algeria, someplace like that."
    "See, I told you they could be reasonable."
    "Continue targeting the Korean card manufacturers."
    "No. You cannot! They are peaceful, they have no malice.. they only want to record television to see it later! You cannot disrupt their..."
    "We are onto their little KaZaA games."
    "You cannot!"
    "Then tell me another target, a military target!"
    "Sealand. They make the cards on, Sealand."
    "Thank you. Continue targeting the Korean card manufacturers."
    "I just, wait!"
    "Sealand is too sparsely populated to manufacture cards of that sophistication.You may target when ready."
    "Nooooooo!" /I felt a disturbance as though a million cable subscribers cried out in agony, and then suddenly, snow.

  • Last chance for OPEN SOURCE HTDV? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kazoo the Clown ( 644526 ) on Monday November 08, 2004 @04:52PM (#10759693)

    The real reason to buy this may be simply because it's an open-source solution. Virtually any protection mechanisms can only be enforced by inhibiting the users ability to customize the gear as they see fit. Consumers of all electronic gear should patently refuse to buy hardware by companies that withold sufficient specifications in an attempt to thwart a user's ability to repurpose the equipment.

    Unfortunately, most people don't understand the value of such customization, and will no doubt be taken in by the marketing engines of companies who sell closed equipment. User cluelessness is thereby costing all of us money and taking away our freedoms. But like the greedy sheep such users are, they will gleefully parade right into the slaughterhouse, chasing after a sparkly trinket and blissfully unaware of the ultimate consequences of their ignorance.

    Let us all pause to curse the accuracy of P. T. Barnum's insight.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry

Close